In the debate about filter bubbles caused by algorithmic news recommendation, the conceptualization of the two core concepts in this debate, diversity and algorithms, has received little attention in social scientific research. This paper examines the effect of multiple recommender systems on different diversity dimensions. To this end, it maps different values that diversity can serve, and a respective set of criteria that characterizes a diverse information offer in this particular conception of diversity. We make use of a data set of simulated article recommendations based on actual content of one of the major Dutch broadsheet newspapers and its users (N=21,973 articles, N=500 users). We find that all of the recommendation logics under study proved to lead to a rather diverse set of recommendations that are on par with human editors and that basing recommendations on user histories can substantially increase topic diversity within a recommendation set.

<p>In the debate about filter bubbles caused by algorithmic news recommendation, the conceptualization of the two core concepts in this debate, diversity and algorithms, has received little attention in social scientific research. This paper examines the effect of multiple recommender systems on different diversity dimensions. To this end, it maps different values that diversity can serve, and a respective set of criteria that characterizes a diverse information offer in this particular conception of diversity. We make use of a data set of simulated article recommendations based on actual content of one of the major Dutch broadsheet newspapers and its users (N=21,973 articles, N=500 users). We find that all of the recommendation logics under study proved to lead to a rather diverse set of recommendations that are on par with human editors and that basing recommendations on user histories can substantially increase topic diversity within a recommendation set.</p>

Online political microtargeting involves monitoring people’s online behaviour, and using the collected data, sometimes enriched with other data, to show people-targeted political advertisements. Online political microtargeting is widely used in the US; Europe may not be far behind. This paper maps microtargeting’s promises and threats to democracy. For example, microtargeting promises to optimise the match between the electorate’s concerns and political campaigns, and to boost campaign engagement and political participation. But online microtargeting could also threaten democracy. For instance, a political party could, misleadingly, present itself as a different one-issue party to different individuals. And data collection for microtargeting raises privacy concerns. We sketch possibilities for policymakers if they seek to regulate online political microtargeting. We discuss which measures would be possible, while complying with the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.

<p>Online political microtargeting involves monitoring people’s online behaviour, and using the collected data, sometimes enriched with other data, to show people-targeted political advertisements. Online political microtargeting is widely used in the US; Europe may not be far behind. This paper maps microtargeting’s promises and threats to democracy. For example, microtargeting promises to optimise the match between the electorate’s concerns and political campaigns, and to boost campaign engagement and political participation. But online microtargeting could also threaten democracy. For instance, a political party could, misleadingly, present itself as a different one-issue party to different individuals. And data collection for microtargeting raises privacy concerns. We sketch possibilities for policymakers if they seek to regulate online political microtargeting. We discuss which measures would be possible, while complying with the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.</p>

The exceptions for reporting of current events and quotation facilitate the functioning of the media. On 27 July 2017, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) submitted several questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) on the balance between copyright exceptions and the fundamental freedoms of information and the media, as well as the exceptions for quotation and reporting of current events. In answering these questions, the CJEU may well shed light on the open-ended drafting of these exceptions.

<p>The exceptions for reporting of current events and quotation facilitate the functioning of the media. On 27 July 2017, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) submitted several questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) on the balance between copyright exceptions and the fundamental freedoms of information and the media, as well as the exceptions for quotation and reporting of current events. In answering these questions, the CJEU may well shed light on the open-ended drafting of these exceptions.</p>

This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST.
The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion.
The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public.

<p>This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST.
The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion.
The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public. </p>

Political micro-targeting (PMT) has become a popular topic both in academia and in the public discussions after the surprise results of the 2016 US presidential election, the UK vote on leaving the European Union, and a number of general elections in Europe in 2017. Yet, we still know little about whether PMT is a tool with such destructive potential that it requires close societal control, or if it’s “just” a new phenomenon with currently unknown capacities, but which can ultimately be incorporated into our political processes. In this article we identify the points where we think we need to further develop our analytical capacities around PMT. We argue that we need to decouple research from the US context, and through more non-US and comparative research we need to develop a better understanding of the macro, meso, and micro level factors that affect the adoption and success of PMTs across different countries. One of the most under-researched macro-level factors is law. We argue that PMT research must develop a better understanding of law, especially in Europe, where the regulatory frameworks around platforms, personal data, political and commercial speech do shape the use and effectiveness of PMT. We point out that the incorporation of such new factors calls for the sophistication of research designs, which currently rely too much on qualitative methods, and use too little of the data that exists on PMT. And finally, we call for distancing PMT research from the hype surrounding the new PMT capabilities, and the moral panics that quickly develop around its uses.

<p>Political micro-targeting (PMT) has become a popular topic both in academia and in the public discussions after the surprise results of the 2016 US presidential election, the UK vote on leaving the European Union, and a number of general elections in Europe in 2017. Yet, we still know little about whether PMT is a tool with such destructive potential that it requires close societal control, or if it’s “just” a new phenomenon with currently unknown capacities, but which can ultimately be incorporated into our political processes. In this article we identify the points where we think we need to further develop our analytical capacities around PMT. We argue that we need to decouple research from the US context, and through more non-US and comparative research we need to develop a better understanding of the macro, meso, and micro level factors that affect the adoption and success of PMTs across different countries. One of the most under-researched macro-level factors is law. We argue that PMT research must develop a better understanding of law, especially in Europe, where the regulatory frameworks around platforms, personal data, political and commercial speech do shape the use and effectiveness of PMT. We point out that the incorporation of such new factors calls for the sophistication of research designs, which currently rely too much on qualitative methods, and use too little of the data that exists on PMT. And finally, we call for distancing PMT research from the hype surrounding the new PMT capabilities, and the moral panics that quickly develop around its uses.</p>

Political campaigns increasingly use data to (micro)target voters with tailored messages. In doing so, campaigns raise concerns about privacy and the quality of the public discourse. Extending existing research to a European context, we propose and test a model for understanding how different contextual factors hinder or facilitate data-driven capabilities of campaigns. We applied the model during the 2017 national election campaign in the Netherlands. The results show how data-driven targeting techniques are not only useful in a first-past-the-post system, but also in a proportional representation system, which at first sight seems to be less suitable for such techniques.

<p>Political campaigns increasingly use data to (micro)target voters with tailored messages. In doing so, campaigns raise concerns about privacy and the quality of the public discourse. Extending existing research to a European context, we propose and test a model for understanding how different contextual factors hinder or facilitate data-driven capabilities of campaigns. We applied the model during the 2017 national election campaign in the Netherlands. The results show how data-driven targeting techniques are not only useful in a first-past-the-post system, but also in a proportional representation system, which at first sight seems to be less suitable for such techniques.</p>

Online platforms, from Facebook to Twitter, and from Coursera to Uber, have become deeply involved in a wide range of public activities, including journalism, civic engagement, education, and transport. As such, they have started to play a vital role in the realization of important public values and policy objectives associated with these activities. Based on insights from theories about risk sharing and the problem of many hands, this article develops a conceptual framework for the governance of the public role of platforms, and elaborates on the concept of cooperative responsibility for the realization of critical public policy objectives in Europe. It argues that the realization of public values in platform-based public activities cannot be adequately achieved by allocating responsibility to one central actor (as is currently common practice), but should be the result of dynamic interaction between platforms, users, and public institutions.

<p>Online platforms, from Facebook to Twitter, and from Coursera to Uber, have become deeply involved in a wide range of public activities, including journalism, civic engagement, education, and transport. As such, they have started to play a vital role in the realization of important public values and policy objectives associated with these activities. Based on insights from theories about risk sharing and the problem of many hands, this article develops a conceptual framework for the governance of the public role of platforms, and elaborates on the concept of cooperative responsibility for the realization of critical public policy objectives in Europe. It argues that the realization of public values in platform-based public activities cannot be adequately achieved by allocating responsibility to one central actor (as is currently common practice), but should be the result of dynamic interaction between platforms, users, and public institutions.</p>

The adoption of limitations to copyright is regulated at international and EU level by the three-step test. The major obstacle to new limitations for online use is a strict interpretation of the test, namely its second step, according to which a limitation shall not conflict with the normal exploitation of works. This article examines the test with a focus on the second step and its application to the digital and crossborder environment. It argues for a flexible and policy-oriented reading of the concept of normal exploitation. Following this approach could enable the introduction of new online limitations in EU law. In particular, within the context of current EU copyright reform, a flexible interpretation could support the introduction of a mandatory and unwaivable limitation for user-generated content.

<p>The adoption of limitations to copyright is regulated at international and EU level by the three-step test. The major obstacle to new limitations for online use is a strict interpretation of the test, namely its second step, according to which a limitation shall not conflict with the normal exploitation of works. This article examines the test with a focus on the second step and its application to the digital and crossborder environment. It argues for a flexible and policy-oriented reading of the concept of normal exploitation. Following this approach could enable the introduction of new online limitations in EU law. In particular, within the context of current EU copyright reform, a flexible interpretation could support the introduction of a mandatory and unwaivable limitation for user-generated content. </p>

Copyright lawmaking is conventionally embedded in a doctrinal tradition that gives much consideration to coherence and formal consistency with legal-theoretical foundations. This contrasts discernibly with the recent trend to base copyright policies and their elaboration into effective legal norms on empirical evidence. Recognizing that both approaches have their relative strengths and weaknesses, this paper explores how evidence-based policy can be reconciled with the traditional doctrinal approach to copyright lawmaking. It suggests that unproven doctrinal constellations that unnecessarily focus the legislative intention unequally on protecting copyright holders should be removed, but that lawmakers at the same time should also not stare blindly on economic evidence if legitimate claims based on fairness rationales are put forward, which also have to be weighed in as evidence.

<p>Copyright lawmaking is conventionally embedded in a doctrinal tradition that gives much consideration to coherence and formal consistency with legal-theoretical foundations. This contrasts discernibly with the recent trend to base copyright policies and their elaboration into effective legal norms on empirical evidence. Recognizing that both approaches have their relative strengths and weaknesses, this paper explores how evidence-based policy can be reconciled with the traditional doctrinal approach to copyright lawmaking. It suggests that unproven doctrinal constellations that unnecessarily focus the legislative intention unequally on protecting copyright holders should be removed, but that lawmakers at the same time should also not stare blindly on economic evidence if legitimate claims based on fairness rationales are put forward, which also have to be weighed in as evidence.</p>

‘‘Fake news’’ has become a much-used and much-hyped term in the so-called ‘‘post-truth’’ era that we now live in. It is also much-maligned: it is often blamed for having a disruptive impact on the outcomes of elections and referenda and for skewing democratic public debate, with the 2016 US Presidential elections and Brexit referendum often cited as examples. ‘‘Fake news’’ has also been flagged for fuelling propaganda and ‘‘hate speech’’ and even violence. ‘‘Pizzagate’’ is an infamous example of exceptional circumstances in which a false news story had a central role in a shooting incident. In December 2016, a man in Washington D.C. took it upon himself to ‘‘self-investigate’’
a story (a completely unfounded conspiracy theory) that the Hillary Clinton campaign team was running a paedophile ring from the premises of a pizzeria. Shots were fired and he was arrested and charged with assault and related offences. Given all this bad press, it is perhaps little wonder that ‘‘fake news’’ has become a major preoccupation for international organisations, national law- and policy-makers, the media and media actors, civil society and academia. But what exactly is ‘‘fake news’’ and what is all the fuss about? In addressing these questions, this column will also consider historical and contemporary perspectives on the term and its relationship with human rights.

<p>‘‘Fake news’’ has become a much-used and much-hyped term in the so-called ‘‘post-truth’’ era that we now live in. It is also much-maligned: it is often blamed for having a disruptive impact on the outcomes of elections and referenda and for skewing democratic public debate, with the 2016 US Presidential elections and Brexit referendum often cited as examples. ‘‘Fake news’’ has also been flagged for fuelling propaganda and ‘‘hate speech’’ and even violence. ‘‘Pizzagate’’ is an infamous example of exceptional circumstances in which a false news story had a central role in a shooting incident. In December 2016, a man in Washington D.C. took it upon himself to ‘‘self-investigate’’
a story (a completely unfounded conspiracy theory) that the Hillary Clinton campaign team was running a paedophile ring from the premises of a pizzeria. Shots were fired and he was arrested and charged with assault and related offences. Given all this bad press, it is perhaps little wonder that ‘‘fake news’’ has become a major preoccupation for international organisations, national law- and policy-makers, the media and media actors, civil society and academia. But what exactly is ‘‘fake news’’ and what is all the fuss about? In addressing these questions, this column will also consider historical and contemporary perspectives on the term and its relationship with human rights.</p>

Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests. Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.

<p>Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests. Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.</p>

This article discusses ways in which the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and post-GATS free trade agreements may limit the EU's ability to regulate privacy and personal data protection as fundamental rights. After discussing this issue in two dimensions \textendash the vertical relationship between trade and national and European Union (EU) law, and the horizontal relationship between trade and human rights law \textendash the author concludes that these limits are real and pose serious risks.
Inspired by recent developments in safeguarding labour, and environmental standards and sustainable development, the article argues that privacy and personal data protection should be part of, and protected by, international trade deals made by the EU. The EU should negotiate future international trade agreements with the objective of allowing them to reflect the normative foundations of privacy and personal data protection. This article suggests a specific way to achieve this objective.

<p>This article discusses ways in which the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and post-GATS free trade agreements may limit the EU's ability to regulate privacy and personal data protection as fundamental rights. After discussing this issue in two dimensions – the vertical relationship between trade and national and European Union (EU) law, and the horizontal relationship between trade and human rights law – the author concludes that these limits are real and pose serious risks.
Inspired by recent developments in safeguarding labour, and environmental standards and sustainable development, the article argues that privacy and personal data protection should be part of, and protected by, international trade deals made by the EU. The EU should negotiate future international trade agreements with the objective of allowing them to reflect the normative foundations of privacy and personal data protection. This article suggests a specific way to achieve this objective.</p>

More and more news is personalised, based on our personal data and interests. As a result, the focus of media regulation moves from the news producer to the news recipient. This research asks what the fundamental right to receive information means for personalised news consumers and the obligation it imposes on states. However, the right to receive information is under-theorised. Therefore, we develop a framework to understand this right, starting from case law of the European Court of Human Rights. On this basis, we identify five perspectives on the right to receive information: political debate, truth finding, social cohesion, avoidance of censorship and self-development. We evaluate how news personalisation affects the right to receive information, considering these five different perspectives. Our research reveals important policy choices that must be made regarding personalised news considering news consumers’ rights.

<p>More and more news is personalised, based on our personal data and interests. As a result, the focus of media regulation moves from the news producer to the news recipient. This research asks what the fundamental right to receive information means for personalised news consumers and the obligation it imposes on states. However, the right to receive information is under-theorised. Therefore, we develop a framework to understand this right, starting from case law of the European Court of Human Rights. On this basis, we identify five perspectives on the right to receive information: political debate, truth finding, social cohesion, avoidance of censorship and self-development. We evaluate how news personalisation affects the right to receive information, considering these five different perspectives. Our research reveals important policy choices that must be made regarding personalised news considering news consumers’ rights.</p>

@book{Schroff2017c,
title = {Who owns the broadcasting archives? Unravelling copyright ownership of broadcast content },
author = {Simone Schroff},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/who-owns-the-broadcasting-archives-final-2/},
isbn = {978-90-86920-62-4},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-11-01},
publisher = {deLex},
abstract = {Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests.

Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

Archives across the Netherlands are tasked to make their archives accessible online. However, progress has been slow, not least because it is difficult to determine who owns the rights to make works available online. Focusing on the Dutch public service radio and TV broadcasting sectors, this book addresses this challenge. First, it disentangles the nature of broadcasts by providing guidance on which aspects of a TV or radio broadcast can attract protection and who owns these. Secondly, it empirically establishes that the default ownership rules can only provide an incomplete picture of the rights ownership in the public service broadcasting sector: the ownership is more concentrated than copyright and neighbouring rights law suggests.

Who owns the broadcasting archives? shows how different legal scenarios can explain this rights concentration and establishes their likely practical influence on industry practice in the public service broadcasting sector across time.

At the EU-Japan Summit in July this year the European Union (EU) and Japan have achieved a political agreement in principle on the content of the Japan EU Economic Partnership Agreement. For Japan including data flows in the trade deal with the EU has been an important political goal besides mutual recognition of their privacy laws. The EU is currently not favorably disposed to allow data flows provisions into trade deals. Building a ‘state of the art’ digital economy between Japan and the EU is certainly possible in conformity with their data privacy laws and the classical trade law disciplines.
Our brief unpacks how flows of personal data will governed in the relationship between Japan and the EU. As a point of departure we look at the extent to which the prospective trade deal between the two economies would already cover data flows, including personal data. Next, we will take a look at the prospects for a regulatory handshake between Japan and EU providing for mutual recognition of data privacy and flows of personal data. The brief concludes with findings and recommendations on the future directions of Japan EU Economic Partnership Agreement.

<p>At the EU-Japan Summit in July this year the European Union (EU) and Japan have achieved a political agreement in principle on the content of the Japan EU Economic Partnership Agreement. For Japan including data flows in the trade deal with the EU has been an important political goal besides mutual recognition of their privacy laws. The EU is currently not favorably disposed to allow data flows provisions into trade deals. Building a ‘state of the art’ digital economy between Japan and the EU is certainly possible in conformity with their data privacy laws and the classical trade law disciplines.
Our brief unpacks how flows of personal data will governed in the relationship between Japan and the EU. As a point of departure we look at the extent to which the prospective trade deal between the two economies would already cover data flows, including personal data. Next, we will take a look at the prospects for a regulatory handshake between Japan and EU providing for mutual recognition of data privacy and flows of personal data. The brief concludes with findings and recommendations on the future directions of Japan EU Economic Partnership Agreement.</p>

Millions of European internet users access online platforms where their personal data is being collected, processed, analysed or sold. The existence of some of the largest online platforms is entirely based on data driven business models. In the European Union, the protection of personal data is considered a fundamental right. Under Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, compliance with data protection rules should be subject to control by an independent authority. In the EU, enforcement of privacy rules almost solely takes place by the national data protection authorities. They typically apply sector-specific rules, based on the EU Data Protection Directive. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is the primary enforcer of consumers’ (online) privacy interests. The agency’s competence is not based on the protection of fundamental rights, but on the basis that maintenance of a competitive, fair marketplace will provide the right choices for consumers to take. In this Article the US legal framework will be discussed and compared to the EU legal framework, which forms our finding that in the EU rules on unfair commercial practices could be enforced in a similar manner to protect people’s privacy. In the EU, the many frictions concerning the market/consumer-oriented use of personal data form a good reason to actually deal with these frictions in a market/consumer legal framework.

<p>Millions of European internet users access online platforms where their personal data is being collected, processed, analysed or sold. The existence of some of the largest online platforms is entirely based on data driven business models. In the European Union, the protection of personal data is considered a fundamental right. Under Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, compliance with data protection rules should be subject to control by an independent authority. In the EU, enforcement of privacy rules almost solely takes place by the national data protection authorities. They typically apply sector-specific rules, based on the EU Data Protection Directive. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is the primary enforcer of consumers’ (online) privacy interests. The agency’s competence is not based on the protection of fundamental rights, but on the basis that maintenance of a competitive, fair marketplace will provide the right choices for consumers to take. In this Article the US legal framework will be discussed and compared to the EU legal framework, which forms our finding that in the EU rules on unfair commercial practices could be enforced in a similar manner to protect people’s privacy. In the EU, the many frictions concerning the market/consumer-oriented use of personal data form a good reason to actually deal with these frictions in a market/consumer legal framework.</p>

On the internet, we encounter take-it-or-leave-it choices regarding our privacy on a daily basis. In Europe, online tracking for targeted advertising generally requires the internet users’ consent to be lawful. Some websites use a tracking wall, a barrier that visitors can only pass if they consent to tracking by third parties. When confronted with such a tracking wall, many people click ‘I agree’ to tracking. A survey that we conducted shows that most people find tracking walls unfair and unacceptable. We analyse under which conditions the ePrivacy Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation allow tracking walls. We provide a list of circumstances to assess when a tracking wall makes consent invalid. We also explore how the EU lawmaker could regulate tracking walls, for instance in the ePrivacy Regulation. It should be seriously considered to ban tracking walls, at least in certain circumstances.

<p>On the internet, we encounter take-it-or-leave-it choices regarding our privacy on a daily basis. In Europe, online tracking for targeted advertising generally requires the internet users’ consent to be lawful. Some websites use a tracking wall, a barrier that visitors can only pass if they consent to tracking by third parties. When confronted with such a tracking wall, many people click ‘I agree’ to tracking. A survey that we conducted shows that most people find tracking walls unfair and unacceptable. We analyse under which conditions the ePrivacy Directive and the General Data Protection Regulation allow tracking walls. We provide a list of circumstances to assess when a tracking wall makes consent invalid. We also explore how the EU lawmaker could regulate tracking walls, for instance in the ePrivacy Regulation. It should be seriously considered to ban tracking walls, at least in certain circumstances.</p>

2017, (<p>Proceedings of the conference 'Better regulation for copyright: academics meet policy makers', Brussels: University of Southampton & The Greems/EFA in the European Parliament, 6 September 2017, p. 11-16.</p>).

On 7 September 2017, AG Szpunar delivered his opinion on Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case concerns the question of whether the private copying exception covers the services of an online platform that allows users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. AG Szpunar’s proposed answer was a mixed one: while cloud copying, in general, should be considered covered by the exception, the specific service offered by VCAST should not.

<p>On 7 September 2017, AG Szpunar delivered his opinion on Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case concerns the question of whether the private copying exception covers the services of an online platform that allows users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. AG Szpunar’s proposed answer was a mixed one: while cloud copying, in general, should be considered covered by the exception, the specific service offered by VCAST should not.</p>

The dual purpose of this literature review is, first, to identify and summarise limitations that result from the use of copyright licences in a library context, and, second, to illustrate these limitations with specific examples available in both the
academic and grey literature. The licences discussed in the reviewed literature deal essentially with access to, and use of, digital content.

<p>The dual purpose of this literature review is, first, to identify and summarise limitations that result from the use of copyright licences in a library context, and, second, to illustrate these limitations with specific examples available in both the
academic and grey literature. The licences discussed in the reviewed literature deal essentially with access to, and use of, digital content.</p>

In modern markets, many companies offer so-called “free” services and monetize consumer data they collect through those services. This paper argues that consumer law and data protection law can usefully complement each other. Data protection law can also inform the interpretation of consumer law. Using consumer rights, consumers should be able to challenge excessive collection of their personal data. Consumer organizations have used consumer law to tackle data protection infringements. The interplay of data protection law and consumer protection law provides exciting opportunities for a more integrated vision on “data consumer law”.

<p>In modern markets, many companies offer so-called “free” services and monetize consumer data they collect through those services. This paper argues that consumer law and data protection law can usefully complement each other. Data protection law can also inform the interpretation of consumer law. Using consumer rights, consumers should be able to challenge excessive collection of their personal data. Consumer organizations have used consumer law to tackle data protection infringements. The interplay of data protection law and consumer protection law provides exciting opportunities for a more integrated vision on “data consumer law”.</p>

This report presents and draws on multidisciplinary insights into what characterises effective user control over the collection and use of personal data. User controls arise from the interplay of a number of conditions. These are partly technical but also connected to different aspects of user behaviour, the intricacies of design, as well as the internal and external incentives in privacy governance that exist today. Our review of the state of research underscores that devising effective user controls require close collaboration between different disciplines, clear regulatory guidance and scientifically-backed assessments.

<p>This report presents and draws on multidisciplinary insights into what characterises effective user control over the collection and use of personal data. User controls arise from the interplay of a number of conditions. These are partly technical but also connected to different aspects of user behaviour, the intricacies of design, as well as the internal and external incentives in privacy governance that exist today. Our review of the state of research underscores that devising effective user controls require close collaboration between different disciplines, clear regulatory guidance and scientifically-backed assessments. </p>